Re: If You Think Clean Coal Technology Is The Answer

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Keith nuttle, Dec 29, 2008.

  1. Keith nuttle

    Keith nuttle Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > Keith nuttle wrote:
    >> Alan Browne wrote:

    >
    >>> CO2 'tipping points' is a dangerous game. Make no assumption that it
    >>> will self balance rapidly enough. Already higher CO2 in oceans is
    >>> changing acidity levels and killing of speisces and driving them into
    >>> narrower niches where there is too much competition for food or not
    >>> enough oxygen.

    >>
    >> The changes in pH in these studies are in the range of 0.1 pH units.
    >> This is within the accuracy of the measurement of pH. pH "standards"
    >> values are given with a +/- 0.1 units accuracy so the value of the
    >> sample can not be better than +/-0.1. (Reference: any lab supply
    >> catalog)

    >
    > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/science/23obsquid.html?_r=1&ref=science
    >
    > I'll take such reports over your "lab supply catalog" derived opinions
    > any time.
    >

    How do you think they take those readings on pH if they don't get the
    standards and instruments for pH from those Lab Supply catalogs. Every
    laboratory in the country uses those standards from those Lab Supply
    catalogs; from schools, universities, the FDA, EPA, and every research
    lab in the country including those that measure the ocean pH's. There
    are some good articles of pH measurements online just google pH
    measurements.
    Keith nuttle, Dec 29, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Keith nuttle

    Keith nuttle Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:
    > Keith nuttle wrote:
    >> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>> Keith nuttle wrote:
    >>>> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> CO2 'tipping points' is a dangerous game. Make no assumption that
    >>>>> it will self balance rapidly enough. Already higher CO2 in oceans
    >>>>> is changing acidity levels and killing of speisces and driving them
    >>>>> into narrower niches where there is too much competition for food
    >>>>> or not enough oxygen.
    >>>>
    >>>> The changes in pH in these studies are in the range of 0.1 pH units.
    >>>> This is within the accuracy of the measurement of pH. pH
    >>>> "standards" values are given with a +/- 0.1 units accuracy so the
    >>>> value of the sample can not be better than +/-0.1. (Reference: any
    >>>> lab supply catalog)
    >>>
    >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/science/23obsquid.html?_r=1&ref=science
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I'll take such reports over your "lab supply catalog" derived
    >>> opinions any time.
    >>>

    >> How do you think they take those readings on pH if they don't get the
    >> standards and instruments for pH from those Lab Supply catalogs.
    >> Every laboratory in the country uses those standards from those Lab
    >> Supply catalogs; from schools, universities, the FDA, EPA, and every
    >> research lab in the country including those that measure the ocean
    >> pH's. There are some good articles of pH measurements online just
    >> google pH measurements.

    >
    > I'm not wasting my time with red herring searches. Point 1 is that you
    > have no accademic standing v. the scientists who are making
    > observations, measurements and correlations.
    >
    > If you take a thousand pH readings from different places at a resolution
    > of 0.1, the resolution of the average is much finer than 0.1.
    >
    > Further, the observations by the scientists are not limited to pH
    > readings alone, but correlated with behaviour, oxygen, temperature,
    > depth, etc. measurements.
    >
    > EOD for me. You're really not worth my time.
    >

    I have spent 40 years working in a laboratories testing ph and other
    simple physical properties, simple ACS and USP tests, Gas and Liquid
    chromatograph, IR/UV, Atomic Absorption and others on products for the
    chemical and pharmaceutical industry. What are your qualifications?
    Keith nuttle, Dec 29, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Keith nuttle

    Keith nuttle Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:13:15 -0500, Keith nuttle
    > <> wrote in
    > <My76l.11993$>:
    >
    >> Alan Browne wrote:

    >
    >>> EOD for me. You're really not worth my time.
    >>>

    >> I have spent 40 years working in a laboratories testing ph and other
    >> simple physical properties, simple ACS and USP tests, Gas and Liquid
    >> chromatograph, IR/UV, Atomic Absorption and others on products for the
    >> chemical and pharmaceutical industry. What are your qualifications?

    >
    > * Convincing the climate-change skeptics
    > <http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/04/convincing_the_climate_change_skeptics/>
    > * Climate change skeptics/common claims and rebuttal
    > <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal>
    > * Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer,
    > Guess who's funding the global warming doubt shops?
    > <http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentid=4870&source=ggad&gclid=CIKu3J7K45cCFQsQagodYlCDBw>
    >

    Read the scientific journals, and not the popular press.
    Keith nuttle, Dec 29, 2008
    #3
  4. Keith nuttle

    Mr.T Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > If you take a thousand pH readings from different places at a resolution
    > of 0.1, the resolution of the average is much finer than 0.1.


    Actually NO. The measurement uncertainty, which is *additional* to the
    resolution, can be reduced, but not the resolution itself.

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Dec 30, 2008
    #4
  5. Keith nuttle

    Mr.T Guest

    "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
    news:4959875a$0$18714$...
    > "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    > news:eek:...
    > > If you take a thousand pH readings from different places at a resolution
    > > of 0.1, the resolution of the average is much finer than 0.1.

    >
    > Actually NO. The measurement uncertainty, which is *additional* to the
    > resolution, can be reduced, but not the resolution itself.


    Before someone says I'm wrong, I'll just clarify that by saying the
    measurement uncertainty includes the resolution limit, plus other things
    like repeatability, and is therefore greater. The repeatability error is
    what can be reduced by taking a large number of measurements. The resolution
    will not be reduced.

    Look up Confidence Level of Measurement Uncertainty, and how it is
    calculated.

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Dec 30, 2008
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Laura A. Robinson

    Think you know the "Microsoft answer"?

    Laura A. Robinson, Sep 9, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    568
    Laura A. Robinson
    Sep 13, 2004
  2. Mr.T
    Replies:
    188
    Views:
    2,884
  3. Rol_Lei Nut

    Re: If You Think Clean Coal Technology Is The Answer

    Rol_Lei Nut, Dec 30, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    267
    ASAAR
    Dec 31, 2008
  4. DRS
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    246
    ASAAR
    Dec 31, 2008
  5. ray
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    492
Loading...

Share This Page